This is the type of illegal that libs love.

May 20, 2010 at 7:04 pm | Posted in Illegal Aliens, liberalism, Mexican crime, obama, White House scandals | 5 Comments

Libs love to tell us that illegals are hard-working and do jobs Americans refuse to do.    The suspect in this case has been deported four times.  To liberals that just means he never gives up and has a great attitude since nothing will stop him from living the American dream.



RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

  1. The things you allege in this post regarding liberals are not true.

    • Just about every illegal supporter tell us that illegals are needed because they are hard working and do jobs that others do not want to do. The problem of course is they are not specific enough and lump all illegals together, for that matter all immigrants together, and by doing so, they throw their support behind this type of illegal.

      • ‘Just about every illegal supporter’
        And in the first five words you’ve already made the switch. It’s subtle, did you catch it? You switched ‘liberal’ with ‘illegal supporter.’ Now that’s class. Accuse someone of doing something by pretending that we all know who they are and that everyone calls them that.
        Look, be serious for about 5 seconds with me. It is not supporting illegals to recognize the clear implications of trying to round up and deport them all. There are enough of them that it would have a possibly serious negative impact on our economy and way of life. I understand that you feel that their presence here already has its own problems, and I agree that we should create and implement policies with the goal of easing the burdens they place on our society, but don’t impune me by insinutating that I’m pro-illegal. I’m not. I’m just anti-round up and deport them without regard to cost, politics, health, lifestyles, rascism, backlash, separation of families, etc…

  2. OK, I’ll go back to every lib if you like. obama and his fellow libs love illegals. They see them as future voters and therefore support amnesty for illegals.

    One is either in favor of illegals or not in favor of them. Illegals are responsible for breaking up their own families, not laws. It’s their choice to come here illegally and it’s their choice to put their families in a position that may lead to the breaking up of the family. Many illegals come here without their spouses, kids etc, and will send money back to the native Country. How is that our fault?

    If they have such a positive impact on the economy, places with high numbers of illegals would have a somewhat better economy than areas with low numbers. Like the State of California and their large cities like LA. Yet California has one of the worst economies, and LA is in even worse shape. Now, of course illegals are not the entire issue, but they sure do not help. Furthermore, since illegals are said to take low paying jobs, even if they are granted amnesty, they will not pay taxes since it’s likely the will not make enough to qualify to pay Federal and State taxes, yet, as Citizens they will qualify to receive many social programs they are now not entitled to. So, they will in fact cost even more if they are granted amnesty and gain Citizenship.

    I’m not interested in giving people who disrespect our law as their very first act of entering the Nation any breaks. I don’t see how a bunch of people who are law breakers as having a positive impact on our society.

    In his speech yesterday the mexican president said he too disliked “migration” because it drained mexico of their “leaders” and brightest people, he did not make a clear distinction between illegals and legal immigrants.

  3. “One is either in favor of illegals or not in favor of them.”
    That’s not the problem. I’m not for illegal aliens, nor for that matter is Obama. Let’s use a metaphor here.
    I’m anti-fire ants. I hate them. They’re prolific, bitey, contribute almost nothing positive to the ecosystem, and in fact devastate good native species of insects, spiders, and wildlife. So, I come up with a way to get rid of them, whereby the government will systematically poison all areas where fire ants have spread to. Now the poison is known to cause cancer, infertility in local wildlife, kills other good ants, and maybe reduces the yield of corn crops by 20%. I say we should do it, I mean fire ants don’t have any discernable positive environmental impact so we should kill them. And you are probably against it, noting that the negative impacts are worse than the problem of the fire ants in the first place. You and I have our disagreement, then I turn to you and say, “You are either for fire ants, or your against fire ants.”
    Now, I know that was long, but that’s what you just did. You oversimplified a very complex situation and ignored the point entirely. We shouldn’t incur massive debt, poison our own system of government, fan racial animosity, empower local law enforcers to dispense with presumption of innocense, or otherwise degrade our own rights or freedoms just do deport all the illegals. Yes, they do pose significant risk in their own right. But they are not as bad as the proposed solutions.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

Create a free website or blog at
Entries and comments feeds.

%d bloggers like this: